A twice-weekly syndicated newspaper column on California public affairs.

Monday, March 26, 2018

TOP 4 SYSTEM COULD REVIVE STATE’S REPUBLICANS

CALIFORNIA
FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 2018, OR
THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

“TOP 4 SYSTEM COULD REVIVE STATE’S REPUBLICANS”

Imagine for a moment that California now had a top four
primary election system instead of the top two it now uses. In that alternate –
for now – world, the four leading vote-getters in this June’s primary election
would advance to the November runoff election rather than just the top two.

With two Democrats – Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Los
Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – currently at or near the top of the
seven-person field of credible candidates for governor – no one would have to
pay much attention to either of them during the leadup to this June’s primary.
Instead, attention would be focused on the other five candidates, bunched until
days ago in single-digit territory in every poll.

That’s because the real contest wouldn’t be for the two top
slots, but for the other two positions on the fall ballot.

And if one of the other two Democrats and one of the two
current Republican candidates should win those two runoff spots, it would be
highly possible that heavily Democratic California could end up with a GOP
governor, even though that party now trails Democrats by about 20 percent in
voter registration.

This would happen if the full 25 percent of voters
registered as Republicans voted for their party’s surviving candidate, who
would likely also pick up some independent no-party-preference voters, while the
three Democrats splintered their party’s vote.

Don’t laugh… something like this actually happened in 2012
in a largely-Democratic San Bernardino County congressional district where
Republicans wound up with both November ballot slots because a bunch of
Democrats splintered their party’s vote.

A very improbable scenario, you may say. But it is exactly
the kind of situation a currently circulating potential ballot initiative would
create.

The measure, sponsored by Orange County accountant Richard
Ginnaty, needs 585,407 signatures to qualify as a November ballot proposition.
Since this cause appears unlikely to draw hordes of volunteer petition
carriers, and since paid carriers often get $5 or more per valid voter
signature they gather, it would likely cost upwards of $3 million to qualify
the plan. Ginnaty says he doesn’t have that kind of cash, but might get
“outside support.”

For sure, this is the simplest way yet proposed to give
Republicans a chance in many California elections, where Democrats rarely show
the discipline to get out of each other’s way for the sake of their party. Of
course, neither have Republicans, or one of the current GOP hopefuls might have
dropped out of the gubernatorial run by now.

Ginnaty says his measure is not designed specifically to
benefit Republicans, even if it ends up accomplishing that. “Republicans have
been monumentally ineffective in making their case (in California) and have
ignored the initiative process, a good way to bring ideas before the voters,”
said the self-described “old Tea Party guy.” “That ticked me off and I want
strong new voices that aren’t heard now to have a chance.”

Meanwhile, the reaction is lukewarm from other election
experts who have been fighting the top two for years on grounds that it
squelches minor parties by virtually never giving them a November voice.

Said Richard Winger, the San Francisco-based editor of the
Ballot Access News newsletter and blog, “This definitely could lead to
situations like what happened in San Bernardino County. But it could also help
minor parties in state legislative races, where there aren’t usually many
candidates if an incumbent is involved. But for statewide races, it just
wouldn’t work.”

That judgment doesn’t faze Ginnaty, who is out to clean up what
he sees as a “Sacramento swamp.” “We have a swamp because we only have one
party with power now,” he said. As an example of what a “swamp” can bring, he
cites the state’s bullet train project, whose recent cost estimates are more
than seven times higher than the bond amounts originally approved by voters.

“A responsible Legislature would have put that to another
vote of the people long ago,” he said. “Especially with self-driving cars
coming, it’s an outmoded technology.”

The bottom line: Top 4 is unlikely to make the ballot, but
if it did and it passed, it could radically change today’s political reality in
California.

-30-

Email
Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough:
The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch
It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias
columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Thomas Elias writes the syndicated California Focus column, appearing twice weekly in 88 newspapers around California, with circulation over 2.2 million.
He has won numerous awards from organizations like the National Headliners Club, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the Los Angeles Press Club, and the California Taxpayers Association. He has been nominated three times for the Pulitzer Prize in distinguished commentary.
Elias is the author of two books, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It" (now in its third edition; also published in Japanese and recently optioned for a television movie) and "The Simpson Trial in Black and White," co-authored with the late Dennis Schatzman.